The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

Loading ...

Loading ...

This story appears in the {{article.article.magazine.pretty_date}} issue of {{article.article.magazine.pubName}}. Subscribe

Image via Wikipedia

President Barack Obama will call today for an additional $3.2 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade, including $1.5 trillion in tax hikes, mostly on the rich. His plan also includes $1.1 trillion in savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and $580 billion in savings from “mandatory” programs, including $248 billion in Medicare cuts, but significantly, no increase in the age for Medicare eligibility and no Social Security trims.

Contrary to earlier press reports, however, the plan Obama is sending to Congress’ Joint Select Committee On Deficit Reduction---the so-called Super Committee-- won’t include a special new millionaire’s tax. Instead, Administration officials said in a background briefing with reporters Sunday night, Obama will call for tax reform to be based on five principles and one of those will be the “Buffett rule”—in honor of Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett who has complained for years that he pays taxes at a lower rate than his secretary. An official put the rule this way: “People making more than $1 million should not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle class people pay.” The other four principles, he added, are that tax reform should lower rates; reduce the deficit (in other words raise taxes) by $1.5 trillion over 10 years; close “wasteful loopholes and tax breaks”; and “boost job creation and growth.”

Republicans, too, favor tax reform and lower rates, but have ruled out raising any new revenue. On Thursday House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) declared tax increases “off the table”. In an interview on NBC’s Meet The Press show Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) dismissed any consideration of tax increases as “a bad thing to do in the middle of an economic downturn.”

The August political deal that raised the nation’s debt ceiling and averted a Treasury debt default created the Super Committee and charged it with coming up with a plan by Thanksgiving to trim at least $1.2 trillion from the deficit over 10 years. The Super Committee is made up of six Democrats and six Republicans and if it deadlocks---or its final product is voted down by Congress or vetoed by Obama--automatic budget cuts would kick in. Republicans insist the $1.2 trillion should come solely from cuts to spending, including to entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

Significantly, the Administration official said Obama is making his embrace of Medicare cuts contingent on tax increases being included in the final deal. “He’ll say he’ll veto any bill that takes one dime from the Medicare seniors rely on without asking the wealthy and the biggest corporations to pay their share,’’ the official said in a preview of Obama’s remarks. In another move that should similarly please his restive Democratic base, Obama is excluding from his proposal any change to Social Security, including a reduction in inflation adjustments for Social Security recipients that was part of a bigger deal he tried to strike with Boehner in July. “It’s his vision, not a legislative compromise,” an Administration official explained. “It’s inherently different form the grand bargain he was working on with the Speaker.” A higher age for Medicare eligibility was also, reportedly, considered as part of the failed bargain with Boehner but won't be in Obama's proposal. (Currently, Americans become eligible at 65 even if they haven't yet claimed their Social Security benefits.)

In the Sunday night preview, Administration officials cast Obama's plan as a total of $4.4 trillion in net deficit reduction ---including cuts that were made in discretionary spending as part of the August deal and prospective savings on interest costs. (While Republicans are sure to dismiss Obama's counting of war savings, they have done the same thing in their deficit plans.) Moreover, an Administration official noted, the $4.4 trillion is net of the cost of Obama $447 billion “jobs” proposal—a package of payroll tax cuts, infrastructure spending, and help for the unemployed designed to attack the nation’s stubbornly high 9.1% unemployment rate. Obama has proposed paying for that too with tax hikes Republicans have rejected, including a limit on mortgage, charitable and other deductions for the well off; elimination of the "carried interest" tax break enjoyed by the managers of hedge funds and other partnerships; and the repeal of various tax preferences enjoyed by oil and gas producers, including Exxon Mobil, Chevron and BP.

Indeed, most of Obama’s tax proposals will apparently repeat those he has made before. For example, $800 billion would come from letting the Bush tax cuts for families earning more than $250,000 expire at the end of 2012, meaning the top rate on ordinary income such as salary would rise from 35% to 39.6%. Last month, in a New York Times op-ed, Buffett called for two higher tax rates---one on income over $1 million and the other on income over $10 million. Published reports over the weekend variously suggested Obama would endorse a new millionaire’s rate or release some sort of proposal for a minimum tax on millionaires---say to replace the current convoluted alternative minimum tax. But Sunday night, the Administration official said the Buffett rule was simply a principle for tax reform.

Most people earning more than $1 million are already taxed at a higher effective rate than their secretaries. In 2008, for example, taxpayers with adjusted gross income between $1 million and $10 million paid an average of 24.5% of their adjusted gross in federal income tax, compared with an average of 12.6% for those earning $100,000 to $200,000, and 8.4% for those earning $50,000 to $100,000. But the 400 highest income taxpayers do pay a lower effective rate than mere millionaires---an average of just 18.1% in 2008. That’s because the top 400 get the bulk of their income from capital gains, which are taxed at a top rate of 15%, scheduled to rise to 20% when the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2012. If tax reform is to insure that billionaires pay a higher effective rate than the upper middle and middle class it would have to reduce or eliminate the break for capital gains---something that was done in Reagan’s 1986 tax reform but that doesn’t sit well with most Republicans today.